Talk:Jacobian branch of the royal family
From Talk:Prince James of Lovia And later, his grand-nephew was named after the illustrious Prince Phillip the First? Nice, Horton, nice! The Master's Voice 16:08, September 24, 2011 (UTC) I hadn't though of that but nice! I didn't make his family too big, only enough to make it normal. HORTON11 16:47, September 24, 2011 (UTC) Not anymore. :P omg i hate the lashawns in the royal family so much, someone just delete them, besides I am pretty sure bastardroyale and TMV are both YgoD's socks Alright, I'll do the template. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 18:25, September 24, 2011 (UTC) We don't really have to make them Royal family members but at least keep them in the linf of succession. HORTON11 18:33, September 24, 2011 (UTC) No. . . maybe in the royal family but not the line of succession. They were removed a long time ago. BastardRoyale is also TMV's account, (and YgoD's), so he shouldn't be able to just add people to the LoS when before it was agreed with Dimitri that they wouldn't. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 19:04, September 24, 2011 (UTC) :I don't think anything was agree about that. And right now, the f*cking law says they should be in. What's the big deal here? You hate them, but you seem to be alone in that, TimeMaster. Horton is now inventing new characters, creating new bloodlines to the Royal Family and all I am trying to do is trying to get people included who have had articles for well over a year now, people who's status is clearly defended and defined by the laws currently in effect in Lovia. This is, basically, a non-discussion. Your arguments: "I f*cking hate them" and when I ask why "because they have to many children, damnit!"... it's almost getting funny, comical. Or maybe it already is. The Master's Voice 07:40, September 25, 2011 (UTC) OMFG horton. Dimi's second cousins are being born FIFTY years before him. It is just too damn much. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 12:46, September 25, 2011 (UTC) And Horton, you don't get to be in the royal family, just so you know. Also, no more brunant links. We already have too much of it. You are just going too far! —TimeMaster (talk • ) 12:47, September 25, 2011 (UTC) 50 years isn't really an issue, I know one of my ded's cousins was much older than me and he used to play with his son who was slightly older. Also I have no intentions of being in the royal family. I just want to be distantly related to the son of a king. ALso I have removed the bruant links, and please do not revert the dates to later. I have been building up a whole history based on the earlier dates. HORTON11 13:40, September 25, 2011 (UTC) Horton, I'm sorry, but I can't live with Dimi's second cousins being a whole FIFTY years older than him. PLease don't revert, your version does not not make sense to me. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 13:42, September 25, 2011 (UTC) Scandalous? I don't get how dating someone a couple of years older than you could be considered scandalous. — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • ) 17:56, May 29, 2012 (UTC) :In the twenties it was definitively a no-go. A man was supposed to marry a younger woman, preferably one who was at least three years younger. Nowadays, nobody cares :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 19:28, May 29, 2012 (UTC) ::Not really in the twenties. Marrying a woman one year older than you wasn't scandalous. Also, you seem to say "definitively" a lot, Oos. Most of the time it seems like "definitely" would work better. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:48, May 29, 2012 (UTC) :::Oh yeah, you're right about "definitely", but not about it being scandalous in the twenties :) In some parts of the Netherlands (Limburg excluded this time) it is impossible to marry an older woman without being excommunicated from the community. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:01, May 30, 2012 (UTC) ::::Well, I know two older men who have wives that are a couple months older than them, and no one complained about that. They were both married in the fifties, so extrapolating to the twenties, it wouldn't be so scandalous. Then again, this is America (or Lovia), not the Netherlands. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:17, May 30, 2012 (UTC) :::::Well, you shouldn't forget the impact WWII had on society (of course I can't tell for the US). The position of the Church started to decreased tremendously in the fifties and sixties (especially for the youth, who married at that time). Take this table: KVP, CHU and ARP were the major Christian parties, steadily getting 50, 13, and 13 seats. By 1972, this had decreased to 27, 14, and 7. :::::Anyway, it could've been scandalous at the time (though not per se). The page says "slightly". --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:16, May 31, 2012 (UTC) ::::::Back then it was a bigger deal, and dont forget that they're royalty. It makes it more scandalous. HORTON11: • 14:31, May 31, 2012 (UTC) :::::::That's true. Recently, the Dutch Crown Prince has been criticized for "toilet throwing" :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:01, May 31, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::The senior Jacobians can be also compared to Ingrid Van Draak, who also ran away to France but to be with a painter. HORTON11: • 17:23, June 5, 2012 (UTC) Princess Helena Where would she lie in the Lovian LoS. In Brunant she's at 75, but i'm pretty sure she would be closer tothe throne in Lovia. HORTON11: • 16:08, July 12, 2012 (UTC) :Don't know. I think she and the rest of the Jacobians are not in the LoS currently. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 16:18, July 12, 2012 (UTC) ::Shouldn't they be? Any descendant of Arthur I is considered in the Royal Family, so on that premise membership in the Royal family should automatically include being in the LoS. Personally I think this should be clarified. In most monarchies, inclusion in the Royal Family is limited to living descendants or male-line descendants (and unmarried famales) of a reigning monarch. The LoS is more broad and can include any descendant of a King or Queen, and that;s why they are often long and include many civilians. HORTON11: • 16:26, July 12, 2012 (UTC) :::Read Constitution#Article 1 B: :::#The method of the line of succession to the Lovian throne is absolute cognatic primogenitur'''e. Therefore, the person who legally inherits the Lovian throne, after the previous ruling monarch has either deceased or abdicated, is the person who is the '''eldest child of the previous monarch. If the monarch had no children, the throne goes to the next oldest sibling, followed by younger siblings and cousins. :::#'All descendants of Arthur I of Lovia are part of the line of succession', regardless of any activity, except for those that have requested that they be removed. :::--OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:21, July 12, 2012 (UTC) :::::OK. So now we need to expand our 5-person LoS to included these and other royals not listed. HORTON11: • 17:40, July 12, 2012 (UTC) Blanking I would consider that vandalism, even by you. I suggest you add it back. horton11 15:19, September 21, 2017 (UTC) Yeah, I don't see how it helps the discussion either, and in any other situation blanking a page would be considered vandalism, so... 77topaz (talk) 20:08, September 21, 2017 (UTC) He literally wrote it was a test to see how it would affect other pages. Though I support blanking it since the page shouldn't exist. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 22:29, September 21, 2017 (UTC) How would blanking one page affect other pages? :o Maybe he was trying to do something with counting links via WhatLinksHere; but, if that was his goal, he should have made that more clear. Anyway, there would be better ways of doing that than what he did, as well. 77topaz (talk) 05:48, September 22, 2017 (UTC) @Tåpas: Indeed that was my goal. So I guess now you find it out for me. I think I stated it clear enough in the summary. --OuWTB 09:40, September 22, 2017 (UTC) Deletion I propose we delete this and the Princess Maria article and remove all references to them, since they are too different in terms of personality to the rest of the royal family and instead act like spoiled brats and otherwise stereotypical royals, which our royal family is not (for another example, by being atheist). Other people, explain why you're pro/contra. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 18:50, September 23, 2017 (UTC) :They're realistic, they are meant to be different , and they are not ay all spoiled brats, given that they are not the typical stuffy royals and actually work for a living as opposed to sitting in a palace. horton11 19:18, September 23, 2017 (UTC) ::The royal family isn't a topic I'm personally particularly interested in, but considering the amount of work Horton has put into them I think it would be a bad idea to just completely delete them. 77topaz (talk) 20:52, September 23, 2017 (UTC) We're currently 2-2 on this taking into account Oos being pro deletion below. Please post your thoughts, and don't just say you want to keep/delete it to not make someone else sad, that's a bad reason. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:09, September 27, 2017 (UTC) Name Shouldn't it be "Jacobean", not "Jacobian"? The latter is mainly used only when referring to the mathematician Carl Gustav Jacob Jacobi. 77topaz (talk) 01:03, September 27, 2017 (UTC) :Shouldn't it be "deleted"? --OuWTB 07:59, September 27, 2017 (UTC) :o ::No, I think it's worth keeping on the wiki. :o 77topaz (talk) 10:11, September 27, 2017 (UTC) :::We might as well integrate them fully into the Royal family, at which point a separate page for the branch won't be needed. horton11 12:25, September 27, 2017 (UTC) :::Strong oppose. They don't fit the personality of the family, and they're too rich and spoiled, especially for how far from the throne they would be. But we should make a final decision soon! Then it can stop being disputed. Also, moving to Horton's namespace would be fine instead of deletion. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:11, September 27, 2017 (UTC) ::::They're even less rich and spoiled, precisely cause they're that removed from the the monarchs, get your facts straight. All living members of the branch work for a living, and definitely do not get by on their name alone. horton11 15:02, September 27, 2017 (UTC) ::::They act rich and spoiled, except for a few also stereotypical "I don't want to be a royal :'(" types. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 16:23, September 27, 2017 (UTC) ::::::Working as a schoolteacher or at a television company is hardly acting rich or spoiled. In fact none of the living royals act rich or spoiled, or live in the palace. Of course the blurbs of each member are gonna be improved as I get to them, so if you have constructive suggestions on making them less "rich and/or spoiled" by all means do make them. horton11 16:38, September 27, 2017 (UTC) :::::::Keeping and integrating in the Royal Family. Wabba The I (talk) 19:56, September 27, 2017 (UTC) My suggestions is to delete them. Their blurbs are very rich and spoiled. You don't have to live in the palace or not work to be that. I'm angered and sadified that we don't have enough people that don't just want to not hurt Horton's feelings. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 22:55, September 27, 2017 (UTC) :"My suggestion is to delete them": yes, we've heard that, it's not exactly the first time you mentioned that. :o And your second argument goes both ways: I don't think the page should be deleted just to "not hurt your feelings". 77topaz (talk) 23:06, September 27, 2017 (UTC) :No one has a problem doing that except Oos though. :o —TimeMaster (talk • ) 02:11, September 28, 2017 (UTC) ::Horton put actual work into this page, though, instead of just complaining on the talk page. 77topaz (talk) 03:18, September 28, 2017 (UTC) :::I guess that Oos guy you talkin bout sound pretty cute though :3 --OuWTB 09:54, September 28, 2017 (UTC) Bingbang put "actual work" into his pages, so why did we delete them? These people are unrealistic and ruin the cute thoughtful reserved vibe of the other royals. And now Horton is ignoring the disputed and just adding them to every place and separating the articles again. This is unacceptable. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 16:33, September 28, 2017 (UTC) This is just a repetition of an argument we had five years ago. I suggested a compromise here, which was accepted (in pretty positive terms) by both TM and Horton, as well as OWTB. If you want to reopen the discussion you can do so of course, but it seems fruitless. I personally am in favour of maintaining the previous consensus. --Semyon 17:12, September 28, 2017 (UTC) I think I meant it was a good idea in that it was better than having separate articles, but still would prefer them to be deleted. And I don't think I had such a strong opinion on their unrealism and and ruining of the cute thoughtful reserved vibe at the time. The more time goes on the more I want these deleted. And I think moving to Brunant (or some other wikination Horton controls) would be a good idea. Argh. Just need people to vote pro to deletion, but it looks like due to almost everyone who isn't friends with Horton leaving it won't happen. :'( —TimeMaster (talk • ) 01:49, September 29, 2017 (UTC) : @Semyon - makes total sense and I'm pro 100%. If this'll bury the hatchet and end the dispute then totally on board. @Time - could you try and be reasonable. Seems like the more time goes on, the more unreasonable you get in your demands and views and perhaps you ought to mellow a bit. Brunant (or some other wikination) will not work as they are not Brunanters, they are Lovian citizens. Keeping them here is definitely a good compromise. horton11 14:06, September 29, 2017 (UTC) Obviously they're Lovian citizens now, they'd be retconned to be Brunanter (or Cettatian, etc.). Keeping them here is better than having separate pages but deleting/moving would still be better. Just want my demands to be met. Ugh! Though having them partially met is better than nothing but might as well attempt to get them fully met. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:38, September 29, 2017 (UTC) : They can't be retconned. Makes no sense at all, would be ridiculous and entirely unrealistic. You wanted no separate pages and we've agreed to that. Let's just leave it at that so there's no need to continuing stupid agruments; you can't always win everything and compromise is key, especially in a wiki which is a community project. horton11 14:51, September 29, 2017 (UTC) The point is that they would have never existed, so it wouldn't be unrealistic. I'll agree to ending the argument but only since not enough users support deletion. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 16:25, September 29, 2017 (UTC) : Alright. It's settled then. horton11 16:35, September 29, 2017 (UTC) ::Great! Glad you've resolved the issue. :) --Semyon 18:02, September 29, 2017 (UTC) Josephine I'm gonna have to argue against her inclusion here. She is definitely far enough remvoed to not be a royal and therefore is a civilian. horton11 15:42, October 11, 2017 (UTC) She's a descendent of James and as such a royal (noble, if you prefer) of this branch. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 16:48, October 11, 2017 (UTC) : She is, but she's as much a descendant of the Mortensens as well. Plus, the merits to giving her a page are not based on her descendancy from royalty but on her professional achievements (which are being worked on). horton11 16:58, October 11, 2017 (UTC) Well, currently she's not notable for any reason other than being part of the branch. Let's discuss it again once you've added those. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:03, October 12, 2017 (UTC)